tv The Ed Show MSNBC August 16, 2010 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
and a place, time and a place, time and a place. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. right now, it's time for "the ed show" with ed schulze. good evening, and welcome to "the ed show." i'm cenkuygor. the president does a flip-flop on the proposed islamic center near ground zero. my commentary challenging him on that, plus response from jerry nadler in a moment. it's an election year, which means the republicans are pushing the same old scare tactics about social security. they're flat out lying and i'll show you why. and right won't stop with their disgusting obama/hitler comparison. now a wall street billionaire says raising his taxes is just like the nazis in poland. rip him to shreds later. tonight the battle over the so-called ground zero mosque. on friday, the president came out very clearly in favor of
religious freedom in the country and the right to build a mosque near ground zero. >> that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances. this is america. and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. >> then on saturday, that commitment got shaken a little bit. >> i was not commenting and i will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. >> what, me, did i say i was in favor of the mosque? this is classic obama. thread the needle, try to find the political middle. he found a way to cover himself with the people that say they have the right to build a mosque there and at the same time, cover himself with the people that say that they shouldn't build a mosque there. let me tell what you obama should have said. he should have said, did i constituter? yes, i said they are the right to build a mosque right there.
you want to know why? because we're better than the people who attacked us on 9/11. they do hate our freedoms, one of which is the freedom of religion. they don't want people to have a choice in religions. we do. remember, it's in our constitution. and a document that conservatives claimed to love before. now conservatives have conveniently forgotten and today newt gingrich said this. >> nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust muck in washington. we would never accept is the japanese putting up a site next toe pearl harbor. there's no reason for to us accept a mosque next to the world trade center. >> they took it a step further in the "new york times" say "it's like putting a nazi sign next to a holocaust museum." that's disgusting. he compared the entire muslim religion to nazis. can you imagine if he did that with any other religion? can you imagine if anyone argued jews shouldn't be allowed to build a temple somewhere because
their entire religion is guilty? how about if we didn't allow a church to go up anywhere the olympic site because eric rudolph did it the bombing there. he bombed abortion clinics based on his abortionist views. they're both fundamentalist christian who's did it for religion. should we not allow any churches to be built in birmingham or wichita because of what rudolph and roeder did in the name of their church? i know what you're thinking but that isn't my my belief, that isn't my view of christianity. why should you punish me for what some crazy person did? exactly. muslims today are thinking the same exact thing. why are you putting us all in the same boat as crazies al qaeda terrorists? what did we have to do with their bombing. an average muslim mom has the same in common within al qaeda as you do with eric rudolph.
the problem with the people fighting this mosque is they're assuming all muslims are guilty and seem to be assuming all mosques must agree with al qaeda. when the founders of this mosque say they're doing the exact opposite, trying to foster better understanding between the religions. if you shut them down, what does that say about what you think of all muslims, any muslim? are they all guilty? how would you like it if you were judged like that? remember these people are not foreigners, they're just as american as you or i. if you get to judge their religion, does someone else get to judge yours? thought conservatives claimed to care deeply about religious freedom? did you mean just your religion? do you understand that's exactly what the founders were trying to avoid? they wanted to build a society where anyone it can practice their religion whether we agree with them or not. that's at the heart what have it means to be an american. if you don't believe that, how american are you? because this isn't about what you think about islam. this is about what you think of our country and what we stand
for. do you believe in the promise of america or don't you? do you believe in our constitution or don't you? now we want to know what you think. tonight's text survey is, do you think president obama flip-flopped on building the mosque near ground zero? text a for "yes," b for no to 622639. i'll bring you the results later in the show. now joining me congressman jerry nadler, his district includes ground zero. welcome. >> thank you. >> all right. now, a lot of people are saying that you shouldn't build this mosque here across the country, there's a republican out with an ad now in florida. you represent ground zero. the people of manhattan have been polled and they're in favor of it. what is it of anybody else's where you're going to build a mosque in manhattan? >> i think the key point is that it's no business of anybody's to tell christians or jews or muslims where they can build their church or synagogue. the constitution grants us
religious freedom and protects the right of anyone subject to local laws and ordinances and zoning and so for the to build any house of worship. the government must protect that right. that's what we're trying to do now. >> congressman, harry reid seems to be backing away from this. his spokesperson said the first amendment protects the freedom of religion. senator reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else. if the republicans are being sincere, he says, then they would help us pass this is long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been the senate majority leaders have devastated because of their bravery on 9/11. rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation. there's two issues. one, the republicans doing something to hurt 9/11 spoernds which you care a lot about. >> that 9/11 health bill is sponsored by carolyn maloney and me. we had a vote in the house last week and all but 12 republicans voted against it.
i find that frankly disgusting. it says they don't really care about helping bind up the wounds as lincoln said of him who should have worn the battle. these survivors from the neighborhood, first responders who rushed in and sick because of the toxins in the atmosphere. and they need this help. now, frankly, i'd be much more respectful of the sincerity of the republican who are opposing the mosque in the name of the sensitivities and the feelings of the first responders or not the first responders, of the survivors if they would support legislation like this. it seems to me that otherwise, they're simply being political. now, whether the mosque should be there or not is up to the people in that congregation. the muslim who's want to build the mosque, if they decide to move it, that's their business but government should not pressure them to do so. the republicans until today or yesterday were saying the government should stop them from
building the mosque. now they seem to be admitting the constitution can't stop them from doing that but want the government to pressure them to move the mosque. that would be equally wrong. >> congressman adler, talk about the politics for a second. harry reid backing away from supporting the mosque. it seemed president did a bit of a flip-flop on saturday. do you think they're wrong in backing away from this issue? >> i don't want to characterize anyone else but i think the president took the position that government has to protect the right of people to build a mosque there or anywhere else. i don't think he backed away from that. i think that it's up to the people -- he didn't take a position whether the mosque should be there. i think that's proper. that's up to the people in the congregation. government should protect their right to put it over there if that's what they want to do. >> thank you, congressman adler. we appreciate you joining us. now joining me, david winston, a republican strategist and former director of planning
for house speaker newt gingrich. well, let me, david, read you the quote again of newt gingrich. he said -- it's like putting a nazi sign next to a holocaust museum. do you agree with that? >> no, they are harsh words. what he was trying to do, he was talking about the holocaust museum in washington, d.c. he was trying to reflect is look is, ground zero is a historic site for this country. and there are certain things that go along with that and there are certain sensitivities that should exist. he maybe took the metaphor a little too far in terms of describing. but his point is basically well taken. this is a unique site not just for new yorkers but for all americans and there needs to be a sensitivity in terms of what happens around it that is unique to it. i think that's what he was trying to define there. >> he did a little too far with the nazi reference. >> bear with me. there's. >> think actually chuck todd said this earlier as a matter of fact. and you've watched dick durbin
do this, rick santorum. when you start doing nazi analogies you end up not necessarily making the point you thought you were making. >> do you get why it's even more deeply offensive? because you seem to be comparing the entire muslim religion to nazis. >> you see, i think what newt was doing is referring to how important a place this was and the particular contrast there wasn't good. look, there's another element that i think is important. and i would agree with congressman adler that look, legally they have the right to build there but that isn't the issue. the issue here is the sensitivity in terms of look, muslims have a unique opportunity. >> i'm going to stop you right there. what do you mean sensitivity? you've said it two or three times. hold on. should all muslims like steer clear of ground zero? muslims also died on 9/11. they died in the building, they died in the planes. they're americans and they got killed. what do you mean sensitivity? why are you comparing the
muslims to what al qaeda did? how does that make any sense. >> 70% of this country doesn't like this idea. there's a unique opportunity for muslims to show look, we understand americans have difficulty with this and we're willing to move somewhere else. there's just a sense of like look, if we're going to cooperate and things are going to work, people have to understand the concerns other folks have. >> you're saying two things. if 70% of the country is ignorant, we should back down. if they don't know the constitution or think muslims are the same as al qaeda, we should back that up? >> what i'm saying is that there's a real concern here about this particular issue. if there's a sensitivity understanding what it symbolizes, rightly or wrongly, but i think in this case correctly, what it symbolizeds. there's an opportunity for muslims to say look, we understand where the country's at. we understand we have the right. >> so they should know their place? >> no, just show sensitivity here. this is a real opportunity to create some relationships here that would be positive.
but instead, look, 70% disagree. if you're going to insist on doing it, you're going to stick your finger in the eye of the american people. >> the problem is that you guys bait the american people. oh, my god, the muslims are coming, they're going to take over ground zero. usually the democrats with the exception of congressman nadler and some others go okay, okay, like harry reid did today. place let's not support the mosque. that's why you get 70% of the country believing ridiculous things. do you really think this mosque is some sort of a statement by muslims worldwide? >> you just said you've got harry reid and newt gingrich agreeing on something. what does that say about political consensus and what it believes at this point? you need to have sensitivity. this is a unique historic site on american soil. you need to show some sensitivity about that. >> you asked me a question. what it says is that newt gingrich is a terrible not a race baiter but a religious
baiter and ha harry reid is scared as usual. and he backs away as usual. that's what it says. >> newt is not like that. >> he just called all muslims nazis. you can't even back that up. how is that not a religion baiter? >> what he was doing was comparing the, you know, like pearl harbor as a historic site to 9/11 as a historic site. ground zero. that's what he was doing. . you're making the contrast that he's comparing it to japanese or nazis. he's comparing it as a historical site and the sensitivities that go along with that. that was his point. >> except he mentioned nazis a couple times. i guess he was unclear about that. david, it was a good conversation. thank you for joining us. >> okay, pleasure. thanks for having me. >> coming up, what rush limbaugh said on the ground zero mosque isn't outrageous. it's hilarious. you don't want to miss that. >> and president obama just hammered senate minority leader mitch mcconnell saying their new slogan should be no, we can't.
all that, plus a private equity billionaire compares president obama to hitler. here we go again. he compared raising his taxes to genocide. wait till you find out how much he pays in taxes? you're watching "the ed show" on msnbc. can do bolder. ♪ the choice is yours. are you up for some sandwich kicking flavor? are you miracle whip? ♪ but my doctor told me that most calcium supplements... aren't absorbed properly unless taken with food. he recommended citracal. it's different -- it's calcium citrate, so it can be absorbed with or without food. citracal. look in the glove box. [ children laughing ] suitcase? huh? ♪ where do gummy bears hide? under the seat. look! yeah! ♪ [ telephone rings ] [ male announcer ] the all new chevy equinox. [ man ] guess who? dad! [ man ] enjoy the trip!
okay, daddy! [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] a consumers digest best buy. with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. it takes you farther... and brings you closer. senk. up next, republicans are trying to take away your social security. they're claiming the system is broken and bankrupt. i'll show you why it's a total lie. the president is on the right side of this one for now, but i'll tell you why that might change after the elections. congressman chris van hollen joins me next. stay with us. ng people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance... ...as well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance music boss: ok, let's keep rolling. we're on motorcycle insurance. vo: take fifteen minutes to see how much you can save
some republican leaders in congress don't seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. they're pushing to make privatizing social security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in congress this fall. that agenda is wrong for seniors, it's wrong for america and i won't let it happen. not while i'm president. i'll fight with everything i've got to stop those who would gamble your social security on wall street because you shouldn't be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you've earned at risk. >> president obama came out swinging this weekend as you just saw on social security. but in spite of his insistence that the 75-year-old program is here to stay, panic mode has set in about its alleged insolvency. the deficit commission will likely recommend cuts to social security. and republicans like house minority leader john boehner and indiana congressman mike pence are talking about raising the retirement age. other republicans are still on the privatization bandwagon, but
the so-called financial problem of social security is one big giant lie. let me prove it to you. did you know that social security actually has a $2.5 trillion surplus right now? how come nobody ever talks about that? it will pay out 100% of benefits with zero problems until 2037. does that sound like something we should panic over now? critics claim well, it goes insolvent 37 years from now. that's also not true at all. social security can still pay 78% of its benefits indefinitely after that. that's a small problem. not the bankruptcy of the system that they're pedding. why are they pushing this lie? because they already spent the $2.5 trillion on tax cuts for the rich and endless wars. you put your money into that retirement fund but now they don't want to pay you because they already spent your money which they weren't supposed to touch. look, let me tell you this in no
uncertain terms. they're coming for your social security. don't let them do that under any circumstance, whether it's the republican who's always wanted to kill it or president obama's deficit commission. they're both lying. don't believe the hype. now, for more, let me bring in d.c. cc congressman chris van hollen of maryland. congressman, you guys are putting together a new campaign highlighting how the democrats protect social security. but apparently the american people are not quite buying it. a poll hre says that only 30% of the country believe the democrats stand up for social security. 26% say republican dozen a better job with social security. how in the world is this t that close? >> well, that's a very good question. that's why it's important that the president is talking about it and that's why we're going to keep talking about this issue because the fact of the matter is the republican leader in the house, john boehner, the guy who wants to become the next speaker of the house, was a strong advocate for the bush plan to privatize social security.
that's what he stands for. their point person on the budget committee, paul ryan, has put together the so-called road map plan which would privatize social security along with medicare. and what these guys essentially want to do is hand over a good chunk of people's retirement savings and give it to wall street. i might add that john boehner the republican leader, wants to repeal the recently passed wall street reform bill. so they want to repeal the wall street reform bill designed to rein in wall street and then they at the same time want to hand more of our seniors' retirement money and our future money over to wall street so they can gamble with it as we saw in the financial meltdown. that's irresponsible. and we need to get the word out because that is what they plan to do, just read their own road map. >> i understand that. what i noticed from president obama and from what you just said you guys are arguing against privatization. that makes sense but you're not saying you won't cut social security. i'm afraid the reason for that
is because that obama deficit commission is going to come in and say cut social security. >> well, the democratic caucus was very clear. we had a big gathering on the side of the capitol just before we left to celebrate the 75th anniversary of social security. and it was very clear that the democrats do not support cuts to social security. that is the position of the democratic caucus. so. >> let me get you on the record. let me get you on the record then. if the deficit commission says cut social security or raise the retirement age, will you fight against it and say it's dead on arrival? >> well, look, here's the issue with the retirement, the commission, right? they're going to come up with recommendations across the board. social security, medicare, tax policy. i swoernl oppose the provisions that we're talking about if they were to cut social security. the question is going to be the package as a whole. anybody i think has to say we'll wait and see what the package as a whole says.
i oppose cutting social security benefits. i want to be very clear about that. and the fact of the matter is that the republicans not only want to cut social security, but they do want to privatize it, and the privatization component is a very important argument because they have a clear motivation for doing it. which is that all the financial interests on wall street, the same guys who clapped when john boehner said he was going to repeal the wall street reform bill stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars through social security privatization. it's coupled with their proposal to privatize medicare. that's just not a statement they've made. they voted, the republicans in the house voted last year on a plan to both cut medicare by 75% over a period of time and turn it into a voucher program so you, a senior citizen, gets your voucher. it diminishes in value and you got to go out on the private insurance market and find a policy in contrast to today's policies where medicare
guarantees your treatment. so both on medicare and social security they want to privatize. >> i know exactly where the republicans stand but i wasn't clear where you -- i didn't get that pledge out of you. that's what i noticed. i'll be honest with you. we'll see what happens when they actually bring the bill. >> you're asking for a pledge on something that goes way beyond. the vote is not going to just be on social security. it's going to be on a big, big package. >> the problem is you guys already spent the $2.5 trillion. there's no reason to touch social security at all. it has a surplus. >> i agree with you. and i agree with you on that. that's right. but there's a debt commission looking at a much broader area. i hope you wouldn't say what you were going to do. >> i hope your agreement is shown in the votes. >> i hope you're not going to say something on voting on something you haven't seen yet. >> let's see what happens. congressman, thank you for joining us. we appreciates it. >> thank you. up next, rush limbaugh weighs in on, on building a mosque near ground zero and the
analogy he made brings stupidity to a whole new level. i'm schooling him up in the zone next. i'm a hot babe out jogging. you're checking out my awesome headband. that's when you find out your cut-rate insurance it ain't payin' for this. so get allstate. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate.
you took my eggs ! it's an "egg management fee." what does that even mean ? egg management fee. even kids know it's wrong to take other people's stuff. that's why at ally bank we offer rates among the most competitive in the country that won't get eaten away by fees. it's just the right thing to do. i was just in town for a few days and i was wondering if i could say hi to the doctor. - is he in? - he's in copenhagen. - oh, well, that's nice. - but you can still see him. - you just said he was in-- - copenhagen. - come on. - that's pretty far. - doc, look who's in town. - ellen! - copenhagen? - cool, right? vacation. - but still seeing patients. ( whispers ) workaholic. - i heard that. - she said it. - i--
cisco-- introducing healthpresence. in psycho talk tonight, rush limbaugh added his voice of insanity to the right wing anti-american chorus against building a mosque near ground zero. and like all the other righties, he had a crazy religious analogy ready to go. but what rush came up with is even more ridiculous than the rest of them. how is that possible? let's listen.
>> let's suggest that we build a hindu temple right next to the arizona memorial out at pearl harbor. why? we want outreach. show we have no hard feelings. put a hindu an temple there. >> a hindu empal? what did the indians ever do to pearl harbor? did they meditate over it? it doesn't take a liberal education to know that the japanese attacked pearl harbor and their predominant religion is shinto, not hindu. congratulations, rush. that's a new record in ignorance. after someone told him what an idiot he was during the break, he came back and tried to back pedtle out of it. >> i said that buda -- i said hindu temple at the arizona memorial. i meant shinto shrine. the hindus are indian. buddhists in japan. >> buddhistses in, hindu, i
don't know. whatever it was. yeah that, makes sense. every time i try to say rush, i accidentally say idiot. honest mistake. they sound so alike. weighing in on a heated religious issue when you don't have the basic knowledge of world religions is the definition of ignorant psycho talk. coming up, robert gibbs annoyed me last week by slamming the professional left. now the establishment media is piling on. i have a message for all of them in the battleground. all that, plus president obama just blasted mitch mcconnell. you're watching "the ed show." [ male announcer ] we make them beautiful. ♪ we make them tougher. ♪ we make them legendary.
we make them better... ♪ to make your life better. ♪ and we've never made one... quite like this. the 100% electric nissan leaf. ♪ tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no more $2, $3 fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no more paying to access your own money. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it'd be like every atm in the world was your atm. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 the schwab bank high yield investor checking(tm) account.
a hit job on the so-called professional left. in her latest op-ed, she echoes robert gibbs. the writing progresses as, quote, radical and extreme" also saying "on the republican side, the crazies often end up helping the republican leadership. on the democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at obama expressing feelings of betrial. msnbc is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a democratic one. the difference between msnbc and fox news is we use our minds. we are not authoritarian by nature and apparently unlike maureen dowd, we're capable of using independent judgment. the establishment press loves to protect the government. they've forgotten entirely they're supposed to do the opposite, challenge the government. just because i think the right wing movement in this country has lost its mind doesn't mean i should lend mine out to president obama.
here's what the millionaire mainstream press doesn't get. we unlike you actually understand policy. and yes, guilty as charged, we care about it. i can give you a million examples but i'll give you one for tonight. president bush made a deal with the drug industry so that the government could not negotiate drug prices. he also blocked the importation of drugs. that effectively set up an unnatural monopoly for drug companies to charge us whatever they want. you know what president obama did? the same exact thing. he also made a deal with the drug industry allowing drug companies to keep their patents for 12 years so their monopoly lasts even longer. if i hated it under bush, why should i love it under obama? what's radical or deranged about sticking with the same position had you before? that used to be called unbiased. if anyone in the establishment media says they don't understand that, then i'm not sure i could help them. if yad like, i could talk slower. maybe you'll understand it then. this isn't about taking down a
democratic president. it's about holding him accountable. that's what i thought the press was supposed to do. joining me now is mark halperin, editor of "time" magazine and a senior political analyst for msnbc. mark, what do i have wrong? how am i deranged? >> could you redo the lead-in but talk slower? because you said you would. >> okay. >> no, look. >> i can do that. >> the example you chose in your overall perspectivety think is fantastic for democracy. holding the government accountable. holding all powerful interests accountable is the highest responsibility of old and new media. i think what maureen dowd and robert gives were talking about was a different set of issues. on which in the view of robert gibbs and i think some other people in the white house, the left blogosphere and other voices are unrealistic in their expectations about the difference between what's possible and what's not possible. but the example you gave and
countless others i think you're right on. >> mark, when you go to actual examples though, i don't see any of their points because look what, did he have to do, robert gibbs made up one. he said all these liberal who's want to get rid of the pentagon. name one. you couldn't name one in the country. where is the left being deranged? give me one example. >> deranged is not a word i would use. i think what frustrates robert gibbs and other people in the white house is say, take, for example, health care. there's arab where the president and a lot of democrats had great political expense which they knew if they passed health care the way it came out, they would pretty good chance they'd suffer political costs. they passed what they felt and i think they were right was given the way they went with democrat only votes the best bill they could. there are a lot of democrat who's complain it's sot not single pair. there's no public option and there's more focus on complaining about the way the bill came out, including as you
pointed out making a deal with the pharmaceutical companies. their legislative strategy required making that deal from that point of view. they would like to see more appreciation and energy for the midterms on the overall passage of a historic act on health care rather than complaining that the bill is not perfect from the point of view from someone on the left. >> by the way, ruth marcus of the "washington post" said it's the deranged left that wants things like the public option. >> you're talking fast again. you're talking fast. slow down. >> so now let me explain it really clearly. what we had was originally president obama saying he was for a single pair. then after he won the election, single pair? i got no interest in that, right? not even close. all we wanted was a tiny, tiny thing, a public option. just competition in any way. he left the system exactly as it is. we have to go to private insurance. we don't have a choice. is that clear? why is that crazy or radical to
worry about that? >> you know why he did that? he did that because they could count the votes. they engaged in what i considered to be. >> they never try. >> one of the shrewdest. no, they tried with all their might. >> no, they didn't. that is not true. every report out of the white house said they did not try for the public option. they never wanted the public option. the easy answer is oh, i don't have the votes. oh, what can i do? how about you try. >> let me say it slowly. >> one last question. >> they didn't have the votes. they tried and they won. ask it slowly. >> did bush or cheney ever whine about not having the votes or did they just get whatever they wand whether it's the iraq war or the largest tax cuts in history with a much narrower majority if any at all in the senate? >> well, they didn't have the problem that this president has had with ben nelson or evan bayh or joe lieberman getting bills
through the senate. that doesn't mean this white house isn't trying as hard. it just means the makeup of the body and the discipline was a little different on the republican side in part i think robert gibbs would tell you was because the institution it will right was more supportive of reinforcing the mission of the bush white house than the institutional left is of professional left is of supporting this president's agenda. >> drug deals as bush does, we're support to support them why? i didn't like that deal under bush. i don't like it under obama. mark, it's been a good conversation. >> i think it's fantastic that you have that point of view on issues like that. i bet robert gibbs does too. >> i'm not so sure about that, but thank you, mark. now, let's get rapid fire response from our panel on these stories. president obama made a bold statement about the mosque at ground zero. i think he backtracked the next day. and president obama stepped up his attacks on congressional republicans today, accusing them of pushing a no we can't agenda.
bob corker has a plan to stimulate the economy. stop all the reform bills and extend the bush tax cuts for the rich. with us tonight, bill press, radio show host and ron christie, republican strategist. ron, let me start with you on the mosque. well, you know, if we're saying they can't build a mosque there, aren't we saying all muslims are guilty even if they had nothing to do with al qaeda? >>, of course, not. that is an absurd argument. what people are saying is they have a fundamental constitutional right and they have the ability under the new york zoning code to built a mosque at ground zero or near it. that's not the issue. the issue here is, is it the right thing to do? is it the proper thing to do to put a center that ons stensbly is to bring people of different faiths together and have a dialogue is putting it near ground zero the right thing to do? i think absolutely not. a majority of the american people say absolutely not. but to suggest that will this is a religious argument or a constitutional argument is false. is it the right thing to do?
that's what we're grappling with. >> bill, what do you say? >> let me tell you something, first of all, we're not talking ground zero. we're talking two blocks from ground zero. there are apartment buildings there. there's a catholic church there, a pizza parlor there. there are hotels there. there might even be a porn shop there. this is not a sacred site. this is all about religion and the opponents, there's only one reason to oppose this mosque. and that is to paint islam as an evil religion and to ain't all muslims and equate them with a 19 terrorist who's flew into that building. it is wrong. it is un-american and the people against it ought to be ashamed of playing a cheap political trick. >> this absolutely has something to do with a sacred ground. why? because the landing gear from one of the airplanes actually damaged the building in question that we're talking about. you can laugh and scoff. but the fact that this building was damaged by an airplane that was flown into the world trade center. >> ron. >> i think the question is do
they have the right to build it there. they do. it is the wrong thing to do, bill. >> there were dozens of buildings that were damaged in those attacks. let me tell you something, this was a burlington coat company department store. a sacred site? jesus. i mean, let's get straight with our definitions here and not make it up. this is all about hatred of islam and hatred of muslims. let's stand for what america really stands for, which is freedom of religion for all, ron, for all. >> ron and bill, your points are very clear on that. i've got to go on to mcconnell. bill, let me stay with you for a second. mcconnell says his job is obstruction. isn't he right if he's the opposition party? shouldn't he obstruct the president's agenda. >> no, no, that's not what the opposition party is there for. i remember howard baker and robert dole. the job of the congress is to solve the problems facing this country. what about jobs, about global warming, what about the
environment? what about more stimulus money? what about the 99ersers? i think it is stunning for the minority leader to say in the most -- the least effective congress probably that we've ever seen certainly in the senate for him to say i wish we could have done even less. that's not why they send people here to washington to do nothing. >> ron, how about that? i mean factors republicans want to block everything, what's their bright ideas? please for the love of god don't say a tax cut. that's the only thing they've ever got. >> i agree with bill on one point. i think representatives come to washington to do the will of the american people. i think we've seen the democrats control the congress since 2007. this administration has been in the white house since 2009. they have governed far from the left, far from the will of the american people. the republican party in addition to standing for tax cuts is very much in favor of a strong national security. we want to have a strong and vibrant free trade. we have several free trade
agreements with colombia, with panama, with south korea that could get people back to work. we can make investments in infrastructure. we can make investments in the american people, but having one party be be it the republicans or democrats bully against the will of the american people is the wrong thing. that's why the democrats are going to take a beating this november. >> ron and bill, we got to go. great points, guys. i appreciate it. although obama being on the far left is very amusing. okay. >> he's a far leftist. >> hold his is feet to the fire. >> up next, the campaigner in chief stumping this week. he's fired up. but can he convince anyone? steve mcmahon has the answers next. keller graduate school of management, you'll have a professor with you every step of the way. whether you take classes on campus, online, or both, you get the same attention, the same curriculum, and the same quality. 85 locations nationwide and online.
♪ [ male announcer ] he's sweet, even with 1/3 less sugar than soda. kool-aid delivering more smiles per gallon. that five-finger bond that communicates trust... honor... follow-through... and follow-up. it's a promise that says go ahead and buy a ram 1500 or heavy duty without a payment for 60 days. and if it doesn't do everything you ask it to do...
bring it back. ♪ ram. ♪ ♪ check the wife check the kids check your email messages ♪ check the news online ♪ check the money in the bank check the gas in the tank ♪ ♪ check the hottie walking by... ♪ ♪ ...wait that's a dude, no thanks ♪ ♪ check the new hairdo check the mic one two ♪ ♪ 'cause i'm about to drop some knowledge right on top of you ♪ ♪ you check a lot of things already why not add one more ♪ ♪ that can help your situation for sure ♪ ♪ check your credit score ♪ free-credit-score-dot-com free-credit-score ♪ ♪ you won't regret it at all vo: offer applies with enrollment in triple advantage.
in the playbook tonight, president obama will hit five states in three days, stumping and raising money for democrats in the mid terms. the president says he's "pretty good at politicking." independent support for democrats has eroded. only 32% of unaffiliated voters say they want democrats to keep control of congress. i think the president hasn't made his case clearly enough and let the republicans run all over him in an effort to be bipartisan and inoffensive. forget about trying to convince conservative i bes you're a swell guy. they're not going to vote for you anyway. here's what the president should do instead. energize his base so they show up to vote and make a forceful case to independents. joining me now is democratic strategist steve mcmahon. steve, what do you think? am i overstating the case? has the president been bold in stating his case and rallying the troops? >> i think he's been busy trying
to right the economy and get things done here in washington. now as we turn to campaign season, i think you're going to see him do what you suggested. he needs to remind people what it was he walked into which was an unmitigated mess. he needs to remind people what he's done including lis base, what he's done that they care deeply about. the progress i be base of the democratic party has been fighting for national health insurance and for health insurance reform and health care for 50 years or longer. and it's been the most important thing toing that base. he got it done. first president ever to tackle it and get it done. he's got to remind people of the things he's done. finally, he's got to suggest to independents what might happen if the republicans get control of things again. because independents left the republican party in 2006 and 2008 for very good reasons. and if he reminds them what have those reasons why, i suspect he can get them back. >> but he is constantly talking on the circuit now about how the republicans left the car in the ditch and we don't want to give them the keys back.
why did he wait till right before the election to do that? why hasn't he been saying this all along so he can say your other option is terrible. you've got to do financial reform, et cetera. why didn't he take the fight to them before the elections rolled around? >> what happens here in washington a lot of times is you have your governing phase where congress and the president and everybody tries to get what they're going to get done done and everybody splits down and campaigns. i agree it would have been good for the president to remind people more regularly what he inherited and what a mess it was. and people, you know, they forget that because their head hurts when you stop beating your head against the wall, your head still hurts but you're not doing any more damage. that's what the economic stimulus package did, taking over the auto industry and saving it and bringing it back from the brink. america makes things today. it was something that the president didn't want to do, but he did. and he should be praised for it. he did all that bailout for wall
street. and tax payers have reaped billions of dollars because he did it in a way where he taeshed strings and it had to be paid back. taxpayers were repaid with interest and dividends. that's a good stewardship of the economy. it's totally different than what we saw under george bush. >> i'm not sure i agree with that last part about us getting paid back. there's a lot of indirect bailouts, et cetera. you get the last word on that, and thank thank you for joining us. up next, one of the richest men in the entire world just declared war on the obama administration. he compares the president to hitler. over taxes. i'll explain the class warfare that the rich have started on the middle class. jonathan alter joins me next.  chevy traverse.
a consumers digest best buy. with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. it seats eight comfortably -- not that it always has to. hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a safe driver? yes. discount! do you own a home? yes. discount! are you going to buy online? yes! discount! isn't getting discounts great? yes!
there's no discount for agreeing with me. yeah, i got carried away. happens to me all the time. helping you save money -- now, that's progressive. call or click today. [ female announcer ] start your morning... hey. what are you doing up? i thought i'd take a drive before work. want to come? [ female announcer ] or make his day. yeah. [ female announcer ] maxwell house gives you a rich, full-flavored cup of coffee, so you can be good to the last drop.
the worst of the tea party rhetoric has made its way to the mouths of big business. the ceo of the black storm group, stephen schwartzman had this disgufth comparison. while talking about the administration's effort to increase taxes he said "it's a war. it's like when hitler invaded poland in 1939." what a ridiculous comment comparing obama to hitler invading poland. let me turn to msnbc political analyst and news week national affairs columnist jonathan alter, the author of the book "the promise, president obama year one." he's so worked up about obama's plans on raising taxes.
what is he going to raise it to 90% or something? what does stephen schwartzman pay in what they called carried interest? >> when i was working on this story for "newsweek" which just came out today about schwartzman, i found that not only did he say this, he said it to a non-profit group. now, the person who first told me about this did so with the understanding that i not identify which non-profit, but talk about an outrageous comment. basically, the issue is this. right now, if you are in that business, if you're a hedge fund manager, you pay at 15% instead of 35%. you're paying at a lower tax rate than your secretary, your chauffeur, and these are folks who are making hundreds of millions of dollars. steve swartszman is worth $8 billion. they're very upset and aggrieved and feel victimized they're being asked to pay taxes like
any other person would pay. now, there is an additional tax matter that you know is debatable. that's the thing he's upset about right now that would require you to not get favorable capital gains rates if you were to sell your investment partnership. that affects many other people. so but let's set aside of the merits of their arguments on the taxes. and just look at the rhetoric here. it's a window into the sense of entitlement and just completely disconnected from reality. that sense on wall street that they feel aggrieved like they're victims. it's pathetic. >> that's why i talk about a war, right? they've already started that war. the wealthy have got a 15% rate in this case. and they did that by capturing the government and they're still not happy about it. >> this has been going on for many years. and obama promised in the
campaign to do something about this issue. it's called carried interest. and so far, he's been stymied on it. he's trying. but there have been some miscalculations on the part of the administration. it hasn't gone through. there are other mistakes obama has made. he has not been as diplomatic as he might be with wall street. you and i disagree. >> he needed to kick their ass more. >> you and i disagree on this. >> definitely. >> getting into some sort of a war with wall street is not sensible for a president. but for wall street. >> we got to go. >> waging war when he's not is really pathetic and offensive. i agree with that last part. thank you, jonathan. >> thanks a lot. >> tonight in our text survey we asked do you think president obama flip flopped on building the mosque near ground zero? 25% say yes, 75% say no. the people have spoken. that's